HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Annette Westgarth
Applicant
-and-
The Great-West Life Assurance Company, The Regional Municipality of Durham, Heather Hart and Pat Bramley
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Westgarth v. Great West Life Assurance
APPEARANCES
Annette Westgarth, Applicant ) Self-represented
The Great-West Life Assurance Company, ) Susan Murdoch, Counsel Heather Hart and Pat Bramley, ) Respondents )
The Regional Municipality of Durham, ) Mathew Wilson, Counsel Respondent )
1This Application was filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
2The applicant is an employee of the Municipal Region of Durham (“Durham”). Durham contracts with Great-West Life Assurance Company (“Great-West”) for the provision of long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits for its employees. The Application raises various issues including concerns about the manner in which Great-West handled and determined the applicant’s claim for LTD benefits culminating in Great-West Life’s decision to deny continuing benefits past September, 2008.
3The Application was filed on September 11, 2009. On November 23, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing that a summary hearing be held by teleconference pursuant to Rule 19A of its Rules of Procedure. The issue to be determined in a summary hearing is whether an Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
4The summary hearing was held on June 15, 2011. During the summary hearing, the applicant added more details about her understanding of what happened in her dealings with Durham and Great-West. I heard submissions from the respondents. I also had before me the Application, a Response from Great-West, Heather Hart and Pat Bramley, a second Response from Durham, and two letters addressed to the Tribunal that were disclosed by the applicant for the summary hearing. One letter, dated February 14, 2011, is from the applicant and it describes some of her experiences with the respondents, particularly with Pat Bramley, one of the personal respondents. The second letter, dated February 15, 2011, is from the applicant’s union president and it describes an encounter the union president had with Pat Bramley. The respondents also filed case law for my consideration.
BACKGROUND
5The applicant was employed by Durham as a health care aide. She was off work due to medical reasons from 1995 to 2005. She returned to modified duties in 2005 before going off work in March 2006 for medical reasons. The applicant was in receipt of LTD benefits from Great-West from September 3, 2006 until September 3, 2008 on the basis that she was considered unable to substantially perform all of the duties of a health care aide.
6The applicant’s LTD benefits were terminated by Great-West effective September 3, 2008 on the basis that Great-West had determined that the applicant would be able to do work other than that of a health care aide. It appears Durham’s LTD benefits coverage with Great-West allows for an employee to receive LTD benefits on the basis of being totally disabled from his or her own occupation for 24 months. After that the test for disability changes and that in order to continue to receive LTD benefits an employee has to be unable to do any work for which he or she is qualified.
7The applicant’s central contention is that Great-West’s decision to terminate her LTD benefits in September 2008 was discriminatory in that it did not accept the evidence that, in the applicant’s opinion, established that she had a disability that rendered her unable to do any work. The applicant stated that she also had ongoing problems with Great-West and to a lesser degree, Durham, in relation to claiming LTD benefits in that